We need a new word for 'hacker'

The words 'hack' and 'hacker' are very nice, but they're hopelessly
confused with
'crack' and 'cracker'. Let's face that.

I don't want to go into a discussion on whose fault this may be, but
it's clear we can't do much about this use of 'hacker' by the
mainstream. Even crackers call themselves hackers. So I propose we give
it up. Give up the word 'hacker'.

We can't change the way 'hacker' is used. We can start to use
another
word for ourselves. We would give up a precious word with lots of
interesting connotations, but:

The word can still be used when talking to other hackers.

We'll get used to the new word.

It'll help people to finally grasp the concept of 'hacker' without
confusion.

It'd be a good linguistic hack.

Note that something similar was done by the introduction of the term
'open source'. Suddenly it cleared up a lot of confusion between 'Free
Software'
and 'freeware'. We still understand the term 'Free Software' and its
connotations, perhaps even better than before, and we can talk to the
mainstream media without lots of references to beer and speech.

It's unlikely that this new word will then suddenly be adopted by the
media
instead of 'hacker' to describe the crackers. The 'hacker' word is far
too well
entrenched for that.

Now we only need a new word. Note that we don't want a word that
sounds too much like hacker! Some quick ideas which are probably not
the right ones:

mage

mancer

tinkerer

deeper

crafter

I'll leave you all to discuss whether a new word is wise, and if so,
which one it should be. And finally, how to introduce it to everybody
else.

If we find a new word for hacker, let's try to find something a little
less ambiguous than "open source". Open source has been just as
misunderstood as "free software". Right now, any company which lets you
download the source is calling themselves "open source" or associating
themselves with it. Take a look at Sun, for instance. The SCSL doesn't
meet the Open Source Definition (last I checked), yet SCSL licensed
things get confused with open source.

The media will still refer to crackers as hackers, people will still
don't know the diference and you'll look dumb going on tv saying "I'm a
Zimkler. i'm not called an hacker any more cause people confused me with
crackers."

suck.com humour apart, the change won't do much efect. Imagine we move
to "tinkler". Then when some l33t cracker d00d gets interviewed he'll
say "i tinkle with other people's stuff". What do we do then ? Move to
a new name ?

It's not a red queen situation; we don't have to run to new names
to stay in the same place. I'll demonstrate:

d00d: hah im a tinkler and i broke into ur computer!!!!1

Media: 'evil hacker broke into computer!'

d00d: im not a cracker im a tinkler!!!1

Media: 'hacker defaced website'

d00d: tinkler!!!!1 its tinkler not hacker, ur confusing it!!!!1

Media: 'hackers steal credit card information'

d00d: but im a tinkler!!!!!!11 why dont u stupids li$ten!! i
never had this problem before...

Media: 'hacker insults media'

etc.

Conclusion: the media won't suddenly start calling crackers tinklers,
even if they ask for it. Really, you know the media better than that,
don't you? The crackers will have the same problem that hackers are
having now. The word 'hacker' is
just too well established for the media to give it up. It was
unfortunate that
the word hacker went mainstream when it did, when the distinction
between
hacker and cracker wasn't so clear yet. But we're stuck this use of
'hacker' now. Better do something about it.

There is a desparate need for such a word - a void was left in our
vocabularies after we chose to endorse the 'bad' meaning of hacker.
What do you mean you didn't endorse that? Didn't you read
Advogato mission statement? You were probably
too busy zimkling.

"What makes the system interesting is that it's attack resistant. If a
bunch of attackers were to create lots of accounts and mutually certify
each other, only a very few would be accepted by the trust metric,
assuming there were only a few certificates from legitimate members to
the hackers."

"Open Source" was born when some people noticed that, for some reason,
free software was in many cases of higher quality than many commercial
offerings. These same people then designed a development methodology
based upon many programmers looking at (and fixing, with any luck) the
code and all users having free access to the code. The freedom of the
users is only a secondary effect that is maintained by the "Open Source
License Definition". In fact, many of the vaunted benfits of "Open
Source" do not in reality require that users be allowed to redistribute
changes or new versions at all. It could all be done using a central
CVS repository. Real freedom is not required.

Free software has existed from the beginning of the hacker culture, but
was formally solidified not into a development methodology, but a new
way of looking at software; what it is and why it should not be owned.
The availability of source was a requirement, given that users must be
free to use, modify and distribute software as they see fit.

Richard Stallman wrote the GNU General Public License in order to
preserve these rights. Software licensed under that license can never
be taken back; while the copyright holder can relicense the software
under a more restrictive license, that is their right under copyright law.

You will notice that the concept of "ownership" rears
its head here. This would seem to be a result of the copyright system,
which requires protected material to have an "owner". If there is no
owner, it is public domain.

"Open Source" is a necessary evil if you want to get your managers to
give something back to the community; it has all the buzzwords and
justifications you will ever need. Free software is why we are even
here in the first place having these discussions.

Yeah, I know all about how open source is not necessarily Free Software.
I wasn't equating them anywhere either. I just said that the invention
of the new term helped. Both in understanding what the term Free
Software means and in talking to outsiders. Unless you don't agree that
'open source' was the right
term at the right time and was something we couldn't express easily
before. Idealistic Free Software advocates must agree with this, as
they're the ones who see the distinction between 'open source' and 'free
software' most clearly. :)

Similarly, currently the word 'hacker' is even more seriously confused
and confusing than Free Software used to be with freeware. I think the
analogy applies quite well, though of course this is a
different
situation. We need a new word for 'hacker'.

I often find mythology to be a useful source when meme-crafting. Thus, the first term that came to mind is nocker, a type of
faery
reputed to like tinkering. However, when you actually look at the source legends of "Cornish Knockers" (and not just modern
interpretations in role-playing games), it turns out that nockers aren't particularly pleasant people. Besides, I know a lot of hackers that
could more accurately be described as satyrs or sidhe :-)

Both Daedalus and Hephaestus qualify as hacker types, but unfortunately neither of those names can be pluralized in a
way that trips off the tongue.

So, instead, my best suggestion is a historical, rather than a mythological one. The technical wizards in Britain who invented radar were
known colloquially as boffins.

Readers of "New Scientist" will be familiar with "boffin", which
is a Briticism for "scientist". A relevant definition,
which I think dates back to the WWII origin of the term:

Boffin: A Puffin, a bird with a mournful cry, got crossed with a Baffin,
a mercifully obsolete
Fleet Air Arm aircraft. Their offspring was a Boffin,
a bird of astonishingly queer appearance,
bursting with weird and sometimes inopportune ideas,
but possessed of staggering
inventiveness, analytical powers and persistence. Its
ideas, like its eggs, were conical and
unbreakable. You push the unwanted ones away, and they
just roll back.

I don't see the big deal. As the CBC article said,
there are lots of contradictory defintions for words out there already
(I liked the "fast" vs. "fast" example). There's already lots of "in
use" meanings for hacker already, there are 7 just in the
Jargon file alone. There's white hats, grey hats, hardware hackers,
lock hackers, building hackers, and many types of software hackers. The
problem is that
we like things to be so precise in programs, and we sometimes want the
real world to be that precise, but it ain't... Deal with it.

I think it's simple. They want to be perceived as being just as skilled
as us. If we go and call ourselves $OTHER_NAME, so will the crackers. If
they didn't care about this, they would have started off with
``tinkler'' or whatever in the beginning.

I don't want to give up ``hacker''. Sometimes, a seemingly ambiguous
phrase can be more valuable than harmful, because it's an opportunity to
educate people. ``Free software'', for instance. You can't
explain what the ``free'' part means if you never bring it up. Likewise,
you can't tell people about what happened to the word ``hacker'' if you
shun it.

I think it's very important to say to people, hey, wake up, the media is
distorting things. Far too many people these days are completely
uncritical of what they see and read.

When our software becomes used more in the mainstream world, we will win
the word hacker back. Plus I don't believe that we are going to be able
to change it, no matter how hard we try. It's just a matter of time ....
they will open the about box and they will see a label "$PROGRAM hackers
: " before the authors name.
The meaning for HACKER will be learned once they start using our
software, don't worry.

It is not a red queen situation. I thought I effectively refuted
the
"if we call ourselves foos the crackers will follow us and we're still
stuck in
the same situation" suggestions. They can try, but the media will simply
persist
in calling them hackers.

I'm far less confident that "eventually we'll win the term back"; the
term 'hacker'
is far too entrenched now as 'someone who breaks into computers'.

We need a new word for hacker, or we need to stop complaining. I'm fine
if
we all decide to stick with hacker and stop complaining about its
'misuse'.
Do realize that this is the rational choice now. Language is extremely
unlikely
to go to another use of 'hacker' now. This isn't some kind of noble
effort in the defense of freedom either, it's about a word; and
as you all should know,
it's hard to change a keyword after a language becomes established. It's
even
hard to add one, but it's still a heck of a lot easier than
changing one.

Well, I thought I'd propose a few names not actually related to anything
(and therefore less prone to confusion). I don't actually expect anyone
to like them. In fact, I don't think we should even be discussing this;
I'm tired of hearing this argument. But anyhoo:

There already is a group of people calling themselves "crackers". It's
those people who remove copy protection from programs, which is indeed a
skill you have to work hard at.

There is another term usually used for those "crash other people's
computers" folks: script kiddies.

Now both script kiddies and crackers have a chance to become hackers in
the traditional sense. All three are based on the fascination with
computers and the sense of power of doing what no one has done before,
and what was thought to be impossible to do, as well as a general belief
in the freedom of information and that software should be free (in a lot
of senses, including freedom and beer).

The difference lies not only in the technical skills, but in the
recognition of moral values. It's not ok to steal other people's
software, but it's ok to make the self-written software available to
everybody. It's not ok to root other people's boxes, but it's ok to find
out where software is vulnerable and tell everybody about it, in order
to
increase the security in the Internet.

The negative meaning of the word seems not taking the absolute dominance. Currently there are lots and lots of texts and websites that try to explain that the hacker is and it seems that they all tend to say something like "ye, there is a new nasty interpretation of this word but there was and still exists the alternative meaning also". Providing only one meaning seems looking as a sign of incomplete understanding, lack of the competence, something that no mass media author can risk.

I would say, it may be ok to go on explaining these two meanings and where do they come from. Various proposed replacements do not sound well at the moment; if some word would really become popular at one time it is likely to be highjacked as well.

New Advogato Features

New HTML Parser: The long-awaited libxml2 based HTML parser
code is live. It needs further work but already handles most
markup better than the original parser.